Question

In his book “A Theory of Justice” John Rawls puts forward two principles of justice. According to the second principle unequal distributions of social goods are only permissible if (a) the positions for offices are open to all (principle of equal opportunity) and (b) if they are to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged (difference principle). Explain Rawls’s justification for this principle. Why do you find his argument not convincing?

Answer 1

Rawls gives justification of the principle, because it creates equal opportunities for everyone, it means that it will bring diversity in the background of office bearers and it will cause the justice to be delivered without any discrimination. It will nullify the scope of dominance of one particular race or group that creates favoritism w.r.t. the people belonging to the similar race. The second point focuses that if inequality in distribution, favors the least advantaged people, then inequality is good. It means that people with poor social, economic background if allocated the higher amount of social goods, then justice is delivered. As per Rawls proposal, it will bring least advantageous people to come on equal terms with the rick people and justice will be delivered.

Though, the argument given by Rawls, seems to be unconvincing due to the following reasons:

1. It discourages people who work hard and create wealth. Hence, discrimination against the rick takes place and private property rights are discouraged.

2. In economic development, law of invisible hands takes place and it will be eliminated as people will either wait for the higher allocation of social goods for being poor. Besides, there will be no incentive for the rich people to get involve in economic activities.

3. Conflict between the social classes will begin and who societal structure will suffer.